Constitutional validity of pending Bill and continuing trade prohibition upheld, leaving forward contracts in cocoanut oil unenforceable.

The Court traced the legislative history of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act and held that a Bill validly introduced before the Constitution came into force was not rendered invalid because it was later redrafted in Select Committee. The proviso to article 304(b) was held to apply to introduction of a Bill or to amendments requiring Presidential sanction, not to a Bill already validly introduced and still pending. The Court also rejected automatic substitution of an earlier prohibition order by a later invalid one, treating the earlier ban on forward contracts in cocoanut oil as continuing. The contracts were therefore unenforceable and the suit for damages could not be maintained.

---

---

Issues: Whether section 3 of the Travancore-Cochin Public Safety Measures Act 5 of 1950 was void for want of compliance with the proviso to article 304(b) of the Constitution, and whether the prohibition on forward contracts in cocoanut oil continued to bind the parties so as to render the contracts unenforceable.

Analysis: The relevant law first had to be traced through the successive Cochin and Travancore-Cochin enactments and orders. The Court held that the Bill which became Act 5 of 1950 had been validly introduced before the Constitution came into force, when the proviso to article 304 was not operative. The later redrafting by the Select Committee did not amount to a fresh introduction of the Bill. The proviso to article 304(b) applies to the introduction of a Bill and to amendments that require Presidential sanction, but not to a bill already validly introduced and merely pending in the Legislature. The Court also rejected the view that invalidity of the later prohibition order would revive the earlier order by any doctrine of automatic substitution, and treated the earlier prohibitory order as continuing unless displaced by a valid later order.

Conclusion: Section 3 of Act 5 of 1950 was not void for breach of the proviso to article 304(b). The prohibition on forward contracts remained in force, the disputed contracts were hit by that prohibition, and the respondent's suit for damages was not maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decree of the High Court was set aside, and the suit was dismissed because the contracts were unenforceable under the continuing prohibition.

Ratio Decidendi: A Bill validly introduced before the constitutional restriction came into force is not rendered invalid merely because it is later redrafted in committee, and the proviso requiring Presidential sanction applies only when a Bill or amendment is introduced or moved at a stage where that sanction is constitutionally necessary.

---